(12-15-2006) — Democrat Gov. Jon S. Corzine today celebrated the New Jersey state legislature’s approval yesterday of a homosexual civil union bill which had been mandated by the state Supreme Court seven weeks ago.
“We rejoice to do the will of our wise, black-robed guardians,” said Gov. Corzine. “We have moved a step closer to true the progressive government enjoyed by our comrades in Iran, who also delight in complying with their Guardian Council.”
Democrats in the state House celebrated what one called “our eager obedience to the court’s mandate.”
“It’s so much easier to make laws when the court tells us what to write in advance,” said one unnamed Democrat, “It saves us months of wrestling with the issues, and we no longer have to discern the will of the ignorant masses. We just do what we’re told.”
87 responses so far ↓
1 camojack // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:54 am
Here we go with the “man date” thing again…
2 camojack // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:55 am
…although according to my personal definition of a man, they don’t date each other.
3 Scott Ott // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:56 am
Governor: Gay Union OK Moves NJ Closer to Iran Ideal…
by Scott Ott(12-15-2006) — Democrat Gov. Jon S. Corzine today celebrated the New Jersey state legislature’s approval yesterday of a homosexual civil union bill which had been mandated by the state Supreme Court seven weeks ago.“We rejoice to do t…
4 Maggie // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:02 am
Camo,
I see nothing wrong with a man-date…..:>)
5 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:17 am
Scott’s correlation of the NJ Supreme Court’s demand for a law defining degenerate sexual perversion as “normal” with Iran’s “Guardian Council” is thought-provoking in its bizarre irony.
6 Fred Sinclair // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:24 am
I’ve heard that the main advantage of being “Bi” is that it doubles your chances of a date on Sat. nites.
With the Islamic view on “man-dates”, I’m figure they will be sure and bring their headsman axe with them when they first occupy New Jersey. Since they don’t believe in the Old Testament remedy of stoning them to death; they opt for the axe (part of their liberal left’s environmental response to stone conservation I suppose?)
Iran does have a rather radical response to Sodomites in their midst.
Heirborn Ranger
7 Hawkeye // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:35 am
Good take on this issue, Scott. As a resident of Downtown, NJ I am really irritated about this whole thing. Corzine is a total jerk. And apparently a lot of my neighbors are too… for putting up with this.
Here’s what I had to say about it…
http://viewhigh.blogspot.com/2006/10/blue-state-blues.html
Regards…
8 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:43 am
Hmmmmm, I agree, progressives are always seem to be looking for another “man-date”. This country is becoming less “the will of the people” and more “the will of activist judges.”
But how dare a progressive court discriminate against polygamists and bi-sexuals by pointedly excluding them in this ruling. What a bunch of narrow-minded, knuckledragging mouthbreathers these judges. If we’re going to go down this road then let’s put the pedal to the metal you judicial neanderthals.
The Baker-Hamilton Lunacy.
9 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:48 am
Corzine and the NJ legislators are such spineless lemmings. I guess we found who their god is, the NJ Supreme Court. Not the least bit surprised.
10 kajun // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:06 am
I thought we had completely used up the Jersey”mandate” subject long ago, so I have no further comment…at this time.
11 seneuba // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:14 am
This must be the way NJ voters feel when the MSM/LSM tells them which to vote.
I know what I’ll get every NJ legislator for Christmas: the “Easy” button from staples.com!
Merry Christmas all!
12 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:24 am
What did the Iraq Surrender Group have to say about this issue of “civil unions” in Iraq?
13 gafisher // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:29 am
Fred #6: Iraq has also had problems with Saddamites.
14 gafisher // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:33 am
Guardian Councils, Legislatures and, yes, even Supreme Courts can impose manmade laws, “But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” Acts 5:29.
15 RedPepper // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:44 am
Time, once again, to ponder that old chestnut :
“In a democracy, you get the government you deserve … â€
16 Just Ranting // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:48 am
Gays have their own Union? How does that work? Who collects the dues, and what do they spend it on? When will they go on strike? Do they have picket lines or chorus lines? This is all so confusing.
17 GnuCarSmell // Dec 15, 2006 at 10:44 am
Just another example of the tyranny of the judiciary. Do these arrogant judges not know that they will bring the wrath of Ra down upon them?
18 rightlinx.com » Blog Archive » Laugh Links // Dec 15, 2006 at 11:09 am
[...] Scrappleface reports Governor: Gay Union OK Moves NJ Closer to Iran Ideal! [...]
19 da Bunny // Dec 15, 2006 at 11:10 am
I’d define “ignorant masses” as anyone who subscribes to liberal/progressyve thought and/or votes democrat.
20 Analchord // Dec 15, 2006 at 11:48 am
I tried to come out of the closet once, but an old leisure suit pulled me back in…. but the other guys in the closet didn’t want me in there with them, so they kicked me out……..I had to settle for a poorly lit foyer.
Back to surrender monkeys. In Georgia, the mapmakers are removing several towns from the road maps, to reduce clutter. There’s an Iraq War solution: Since Iraq was created by mapmakers, then mapmakers can simply erase it from the map and we can come home.
That’s not surrender monkeys. Thats “un-render marquees”.
get it? bwa.
21 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:11 pm
I voted Democrat; am I an “ignorant masses”?
22 Analchord // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:16 pm
yes, you are, laughing@you, but not because you voted democrat.
23 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Christian Fundamentalists have found “common ground” with their Moslem counter-parts; fatwa to follow! It’s Jihad!
24 RedPepper // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:25 pm
If you have any doubts about the power and sanctity that can be yours if victimhood status can be officially confered upon you ; or of the endless moral benefits of being “oppressed” ; just consider that even a mean SOB like Saddam Hussein can be deemed a victim of American oppression …
Dr. Sanity’s Practical Guide To Victimhood .
25 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Analchord:
I be writing your name down right now!
26 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:51 pm
That’s interesting, I though it was the DimDonks and the Islamofascists who were the strange bedfellows.
Just because people have the same moral scruples doesn’t make them brothers in an evil cause. Even Hitler thought pedophilia was wrong, though he lived his personal life like a liberal, just ask his free-love mistress Eva Braun … oh too late, my bad.
But when it comes to geo-political rhetoric, the DimDonks and Islamofascist are virtually indistinguishable, particularly in their universal condemnation of Israel.
Certainly John Kerry and Osama bin Laden share the same talking points concerning the GWOT.
Osama bin Laden: John Kerry without the great hair, the three purple hearts, and the bogus healthcare plan.
27 Analchord // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Oh please dont hurt me mister. I’ve got a little blog with only this many readers, (3), and a little chat room with even fewer. That’s why I had to drown the chat, but I saved you a nice little black chitten.
nyuck nyuck
nyaaahhh!
28 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Sorry Henry:
A Fascist; Islamo, or plain, is to be found only on the RIGHT side of the political spectrum, like Neo-Cons, and other political conservatives! I would have thought you knew that!
Fascism (IPA: [?fæ??zm]) is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
29 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Hamas, Fatah clash in deepening violence
The “religion of peace” in action again. Of for those who bury their heads in the sand, it’s Boooosh’s fault. No wait, it’s the Jooooooooooooos fault!
The New York Sun: The Mendacity Of the Liberal Press!
Ya ain’t tellin’ us anything we don’t already know, fellas. But thanks for the backup.
Ahmadinejad: ‘No country in the world looks upon America as a friend’…
Spoken like a true Bush-hating liberal globalist. Another strange bedfellow moment. If this is true, wake up world and see who you’re sleeping next to!
30 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Gosh Henry, look at that definition of Fascist! If that doesn’t describe Dumbyah what does?
31 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Fascism is correctly defined as a totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.
The Wikipedia definition posted above is bogus.
32 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:34 pm
JL3
Who says?
33 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Your convenient dictionary definition fails to deal with historical reality. Nice try. Fascism is merely another facet of social collectivism. The left has long lied to itself about the true nature of the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party (NAZI). The NAZIs were leftists by present definition. They needed a counter-balancing boogey man to Soviet and Chinese socialism so they conveniently pigeon-holed Nazism as “right-wing”.
Nazism was even described by Goebbels and Hitler as a more progressive (read: liberal) socialist movement than that of Soviet communism. Unlike communism, the Nazi leadership believed that a fervent sense of nationalism was a better social glue than that of the altruistic egalitarian brotherhood preached by the Soviets. This is what has been mistaken for “conservativism”, a patriotic devotion to country. But even the Soviet people were patriotic, so patriotism can’t be the defining element in determining right-wing from left-wing.
The Nazis enthusiastically embraced gun control; did believe in private ownership of businesses but under iron-fisted government control of industry and production; the Nazis hated capitalists - particularly Jewish capitalists; practiced abortion and eugenics in the name of perfecting humanity; and the Nazis were resoundingly secular and pagan, borrowing religious elements to suit their political agenda and placate the masses. Sounds like liberals to me.
Hey, neverthink, if the shoe fits, wear it! Nazism and communism were merely two facets of socialism. I can’t believe how much brainwashing you’ve received from your left-wing professors. And that’s the problem, you don’t know when you’ve been brainwashed until confronted with the real facts, but then you’d simply dismiss it all as “right-wing propaganda”, right? Real open-minded of you.
34 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:36 pm
“The Wikipedia definition posted above is bogus.”
Really? Check the link!
35 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:46 pm
b>NAZI
Main Entry: Na•zi
Pronunciation: ‘nät-sE, ‘nat-
Function: noun
Etymology: German, by shortening & alteration from Nationalsozialist, from national national + Sozialist socialist
1 : a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2 often not capitalized a : one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : FASCIST b : one who is likened to a German Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nazi
Seig Heil Y’all
36 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:57 pm
The actual achievement of the Dictatorship of 23 March 1933
“Adolf Hitler successfully utilised the full novel force of State broad-casting and aviation in a massive modern General Election campaign. This period is characterised by stongest anti-Jewish and anti-Communist propaganda .”
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:EffK
Henry, haven’t you read THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH? Hitler hated communists! That was his main problem with Russia.
Henry, your lack of knowledge has stunned me
37 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Fascism is neither a leftist phenomenon nor a rightist phenomenon. It is the natural result of people on either side of the spectrum allowing their government too exercise too much control over their lives…and this is something of which both the left and the right are grievously guilty.
Many precursors to fascism exist in our country today, whether we’re talking about affirmative action or warrantless wiretaps. People on one side say the government should be able to tell people how to spend their money, people on the other think it’s the government’s job to decree who can marry whom.
The funny thing is…everyone thinks their own brand of governmental control is “necessary to ensure freedom” while the other side’s is an egregious affront to American ideals.
Look a little deeper, people. You’re on the same side.
38 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:05 pm
A Goebbel’s speech touting National Socialism and condemning Jewish capitalist conspiracies. The Nazi socialists saw the Soviet socialists as misguided in their perversions of true socialism, and so were viewed almost as a great of threat to their new world order as capitalists.
Some of the points made in Hitler’s 25 Point National Socialist Program:
1) We demand the nationalisation of all previous associated industries and trusts.
2) We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
3) We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
4) We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
5) We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
Hitlerian National Socialism is a mixed bag of sorts, but in the end it is thoroughly collectivistic.
39 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:15 pm
You’re rant about the Nazis being “anti-communist” is not truly germane. I’ve dealt with this issue in the past and in fact made reference to it in my post above without having seen your post. The Nazis believed themselves to be the true progressive socialists and the Soviets merely pretenders to pure socialism. Nazis hatred of Soviet communism was fratricidal, the Nazis hatred of capitalism is what you’d expect of liberal socialists. Look in the mirror, neverthink.
Nice try, Godfrey, but I find it interesting how no one every jumped in to correct the record about Nazism supposedly being “right-wing” the last six decades, but when conservatives now correctly point out that Nazi collectivism has more in common with modern liberal socialism then all of a sudden we’re suppose to drop the subject because “we’re on the same side?” Neverthink has made it abundantly clear with his ill-informed vitriol that he doesn’t think we’re on the same side. He’s constantly equating us with Nazis. Excuse me for trying to set the record a little straighter.
40 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:18 pm
“condemning Jewish capitalist conspiracies.”
Henry, Hitler was a highly decorated veteran of WWI. He strongly believed that Germany had not lost the war on the battlefield but were betrayed on the home front by Jewish capitalists, which was the basis of his anti-Semitism. His “socialism†was a Germany for Germans, against Jewish capitalists, kind of Nationalism.
“not lost the war on the battlefield but were betrayed on the home front†… like Vietnam?
41 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Hank:
Some other things Hitler stood for:
1) Some persons’ religion (lifestyle?) is intrinsically wrong. These folks shall not be afforded the same rights as others.
2) The government has the right to protect its people by conducting domestic surveillance.
3) The cultural uniformity of the nation takes priority over the rights of its citizens.
Just as you point to the socialist nature of the Nazis, the left can point to their militaristic nature. There are Nazi parallels on both sides.
In reality, of course, neither side is even close.
42 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:24 pm
“The Nazi socialists saw the Soviet socialists as misguided in their perversions of true socialism, and so were viewed almost as a great of threat to their new world order as capitalists.â€
That’s just nonsense! You wrote that, and you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about! You just want to revise it all to fit your warped view! Try reading for information, rather than to back up on of your crackpot notions sometime!
43 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:28 pm
L@U: “not lost the war on the battlefield but were betrayed on the home front†… like Vietnam?
Well, yes, actually. I have no doubt that we would have prevailed in Vietnam had it not been for the leftist factions at home being hornswaggled into opposition by the peaceniks.
In fact one of my chief complaints about how the Iraq war was prosecuted is that the administration didn’t take into account the newfound impatience of the shortsighted American public. In Vietnam they had an excuse…widespread acceptance of enemy propaganda was a fairly new thing.
By 2003 they should have known better.
44 da Bunny // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:35 pm
So, if we’re “on the same side,” [not], then is anarchy your solution, Godfrey? The societal rule should be that there should be NO societal rules?
45 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Godfrey,
Were any of the reasons the American people were told about the need to defend Vietnam true?
Our puppet government in the south lacked popular support. The domino theory did not hold true. Today we have peaceful relations with Vietnam.
Did all those young men really need to die?
46 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:46 pm
South
47 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Godfrey,
Were you a soldier?
48 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:49 pm
da Bunny: is anarchy your solution?
Of course not. But we should weigh the role and efficacy of government much more carefully before invoking its power…and we should restrict said power of government to those roles that are absolutely necessary.
Also: by “on the same side” I mean not that you are all a bunch of Nazis but that these days the right (admittedly to a smaller degree than the left) try to accomplish their social objectives through government.
It didn’t used ta’ be that way.
49 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:52 pm
And what part of my “Hitlerian National Socialism is a mixed bag” don’t you get, Godfrey? Why do you and neverthink continue to insult me? I can be just as nuanced as anyone, haven’t I proved that? However, I particularly despise neverthink’s tired leftist strawman arguments which are an absolute insult to intellectual honesty.
I’m surprised neverthink hasn’t trotted out the tired leftist drivel about Hitler was really a Bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christian. Hitler was a thorough pagan who made religious and pseudo-Christian references to diety (in Hitler’s world, he was messiah and the Third Reich itself was diety) in order to placate the masses. If Hitler was “Christian”, then I would like to know what Scriptures he used to justify each of the tenets of his National Socialist movement. I’ve yet to see that documentation.
After enlisting the aid of “progressive Christians”, the liberal socialists in America have done a far better job of twisting Holy Writ to justify their political agenda in hopes of wooing nominal “Christians”. See the pattern?
50 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:56 pm
L@U: Were any of the reasons the American people were told about the need to defend Vietnam true?
Some yes, some no. Irrelevant to my statement, which is that we could have won the war if we had been able to maintain the will to do so and that our will was sapped by enemy propaganda. The perils of a free society.
The same holds true of Iraq, and I fear it will have the same unfortunate consequence.
Our puppet government in the south lacked popular support.
Diem was corrupt and incompetent. Agreed.
The domino theory did not hold true.
Really? How do you know that? We proved we were willing to engage the Soviets in a proxy war. Neither of us can truly guage the effect that had on their thirst for conquest.
Today we have peaceful relations with Vietnam.
Irrelevant.
Did all those young men really need to die?
Irrelevant.
Were you a soldier?
Irrelevant.
51 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Hank: What part of my “Hitlerian National Socialism is a mixed bag†don’t you get, Godfrey?
Good point.
Why do you and neverthink continue to insult me?
Huh? I thought we were friends, man! We were just talkin’…
I particularly despise neverthink’s tired leftist strawman arguments…
With all due respect, aren’t the two paragraphs that follow that statement a strawman argument too? Nobody in this thread has noted Hitler’s “Christianity” (or lack of it).
52 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Go ahead and imagine that last paragraph is unitalicized…
53 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 3:16 pm
It didn’t used ta’ be that way.
That’s absolutely false, Godfrey. I can give you any number of examples but this one should suffice. Abraham Lincoln used not only the power of the government but also America’s military might to “accomplish (his) social objective” - the elimination of slavery and bringing the rebellious South back under federal hegemony.
We must make distinctions between legislating moral law and “legislating morality” (moral law never changes but the institutions based on those laws do - John Adams and Alexander Hamilton), the first is what every moral society attempts to do and the latter can lead to outright sectarian tyranny.
If not legislating moral laws are you then advocating legislating immoral laws? If not, by what objective standard do we determine what moral law is? The shifting opinions of mere man or a court? It seems to me that was the problem with Nazism, it was morally relativistic. The German government used its own High Court and legislature to determine what would and would not be THE LAW based on amoral presuppositions.
Human institutions failed the test under Nazism. That should be a warning to secular moral relativists everywhere. Moral law isn’t intuitive, it is revealed. Otherwise why hasn’t the whole world rallied to an intuitive, uniform “moral” law of self-interest after tens of thousands of years of social “evolution”? Clearly man is in rebellion not only with respect to human governments but also with respect to his Creator.
This view helps us better understand James Madison, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson when they wrote and published this opinion in the 1785 Virginia Bill of Religious Remonstrances: “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civilized Society, he must first be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.” But I will be the first to admit, given the debauchery that has reigned even throughout some of Christendom today, there are principled atheists who act more like the subject of the Governor of the Universe than some Christians who live for the world and its moral relativism.
54 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 3:22 pm
“I have no doubt that we would have prevailed in Vietnam had it not been for the leftist factions at home being hornswaggled into opposition by the peaceniks.”
Good for you, Godfrey; but your opinion, is also irrelevant!
Clearly, cost is no object, if you can avoid paying the bill.
55 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 3:32 pm
The Darthmeister must have database of boilerplate propaganda. I bet he can plug-in a few thousand “right-wing nutball†words on any subject.
56 Darthmeister // Dec 15, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Godfrey,
You’re fight, but it wasn’t a strawhorse argument I was engaging in but rather a pre-emptive argument. I’ve seen where these kind of “debates” end up.
We’re brothers: As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17. You’re one of those principled atheists I was speaking about. Please accept my apology for being snippy. **suck up mode/off**
Feliz Navidad, amigos and amigas! Our family is off on a Christmas Caribbean Cruise. It’s the only time we could fit it in with the two boys. We’ll be seeing my dad and brother for a day and a half when we get back. Both are Democrats but my dad is old school Southern Democrat. Doesn’t agree with the social agenda of the liberal DemDonk leadership in the least bit but votes straight party Dem every time. Boy will I need grace.
57 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 3:41 pm
L@U: …but your opinion, is also irrelevant!.
No opinions are irrelevant in a forum which specifically solicits opinion. Not even yours.
58 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Godfrey:
I stand corrected. It is your right to express your opinion. But, since my questions about your considerations in forming it are irrelevant to you, your opinion on this subject is without sufficient foundation, making it irrelevant to me. Yes, even me.
59 Analchord // Dec 15, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I think that Heetler and his wife Teetler were fascists. Just like Mussolini and his wife Pussolini.
Lincoln was interested only in preserving the union. He would free the slaves or imprison the slaves if either choice would save the union.
His Emanicipation Proclamation was a timing thing, to stop British support of the south, not a moral thing.
Lincoln at an AA meeting: “Four Coors and seven beers ago…….”
60 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Hank: …it wasn’t a strawhorse argument I was engaging in but rather a pre-emptive argument.
Be that as it may, the same might be said of any strawman. It’s just bad form.
If not legislating moral laws are you then advocating legislating immoral laws?
Of course not. But how about “amoral” laws? Laws that don’t try to foist Christian, atheist or socialist morality on a supposedly free people? I think Americans are perfectly capable of choosing their own moral code…it need not be legislated for them by a bunch of populist brown-nosers whose only ambition is to retain elected office.
The only “moral” legislation that should be passed should be that which protects basic freedom (like laws against murder). You asked about an “objective standardâ€. This is the only consistent standard that ensures that everyone is treated fairly.
It seems to me that was the problem with Nazism, it was morally relativistic.
Hardly! It was morally absolutist! That way lies servitude…whether the people making the laws are Nazis or Christians or secular humanists.
Moral law isn’t intuitive, it is revealed.
In other words it stems from the Bible. Problem is, that’s not true. Much of the so-called morality in the Bible is deplorable: stoning homosexuals and adulterists, killing disobedient children. We’ve had that discussion before and many here have gently pointed out that such laws were necessary for the people of the time but are no longer applicable. Fine, I’ll go with that.
But what is it that enables man to distinguish between which Biblical law is applicable and which is not? I’ll answer that question for you: an intuitive sense of right and wrong. All of which means that we would know what to do whether it was “revealed” or not.
The problem with passing legislation based on “revealed” morality is that different religions “reveal” it differently. THAT, much more than what you call moral relativism, is a recipe for a sectarian nightmare.
…why hasn’t the whole world rallied to an intuitive, uniform “moral†law of self-interest after tens of thousands of years of social “evolutionâ€?
Well, in some ways it has. The universal moral laws that exist (against murder, rape, theft etc.) are often obscured by religion rather than enlightened by it…as they have been obscured by other “higher power” doctrines (nazism, communism, etc.). But the fact is that every society, regardless of religion or lack of it, has laws against these things. When people start trying to pass laws based on zeal rather than on the basic concept of “freedom firstâ€, things go terribly awry.
It is exactly this tendency, for human institutions to twist laws to fit whatever moral zeitgeist prevails at the time, that has subverted human freedom and happiness throughout history.
All I’m saying is: let people decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. So long as they’re not hurting others, it is not the province of government to decide whether it is right or wrong.
Morality can and should exist…but it’s not a function of government. The only function of a democratic government should be to protect the freedom of its citizens.
61 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Hank: btw, I will be among Democrats this holiday season too. But I love ‘em all dearly so I’ll see past their foibles…
62 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Be nice to the Democrats! There are more and more of them now, thanks to Dumbyah.
63 Analchord // Dec 15, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I am taking the liberty of officially declaring it fascist miller time and demanding that everyone take a swig of beer now, at 4:13 pm on Dec. 15, 2006.
It’s almost 2007? The decade is nearly over? Now I’m frightened.
BTW: there were 8 years between attacks on the Trade Towers. It’s been five years since 911. We have to expect some sort of attack dead ahead, considering that this is a declared war and folks just do things quicker. If I were al queda, I’d go after the bowl games. There’s a target rich environment. W asked americans to suggest ways to attack america so that the FBI can come up with possible defenses. Remember that? My suggestion was that propane trucks would hit a football game from north south east west, maybe ten of them, and crash into the bowl shaped stadium and explode under all the bleachers and mo shu the fans, like a chinese wok. I got an official citation for being a good citizen for that one, and barriers were placed on twenty different stadiums thanx to my suggestion. well, gotta go stop terror……..who was that masked moron? RETROROCKETMAN!!!!!
64 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 4:25 pm
L@U…since my questions about your considerations in forming it are irrelevant to you, your opinion on this subject is without sufficient foundation, making it irrelevant to me.
I’m not saying your questions were irrelevant “to me”. I’m saying that they constitute an inconsistent line of reasoning. There are huge problems with this sort of inconsistency, not the least of which is that the subject morphs from the original point into something completely unrecognizeable.
The only question being addressed was “could we have won the Vietnam war?”. Your responses (did those men have to die? Where you a soldier? We are friends with Vietnam now) were not related to the point at hand.
In a coherent discussion, such non-sequiturs are a very bad thing. Unfortunately they are also a tactic of unscrupulous debaters. I’m not sure if you fall into this category, but many people do; they fail to address the question, instead creating a diversion with the intention of sidetracking the conversation to what they consider “higher ground”, where they feel they have a better chance of winning.
So again: I’m not saying that your questions were “irrelevant to me”. I’m saying that they were not germane to the original question and were therefore out of place.
Here’s a book you might find beneficial.
65 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Unregognizable, even.
66 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Yikes. Un-rec-og-niz-a-ble.
Whew!
67 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Godfrey,
Do you have some particular expertise to offer?
I don’t think we could have ever have won that war.
68 Beerme // Dec 15, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The US was winning the war in Vietnam and would have won it if the public’s will to fight hadn’t been eroded by leftists and liberals in the news media. I don’t think the US ever lost a battle. NV General Giap admitted after the war that their ability to continue was near extinguished when the debate against the war in America took a strong turn toward “cut and run”. Even the weak South Vietnamese government was handling things without us until congress pulled the funding, I believe…
BTW, Analchord, I missed the simultaneous toast can I have another shot at it?
69 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 15, 2006 at 5:56 pm
The notion that we were not or, even, could not win the war in Viet Nam is pure myth.
70 da Bunny // Dec 15, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Godfrey, re #60
From where would a person’s “intuitive sense of right and wrong” come? I’ve known some people in my life whose “moral compass” is either nonexistent, or seriously malfunctioning. Fwiw, how does a child know right from wrong, unless boundaries and limitations are placed upon their behavior? Some of the most unhappy brats I’ve ever encountered were kids whose parents refused to restrict them in any way.
71 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Our next president courtesy of Michael M. Bates.
72 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:29 pm
L@U: I’d hardly call it “expertise”…but think I understand the prevailing opinions…especially given that we now find ourselves in a similar situation. People tend to look at Iraq in the context of Vietnam but it’s also instructive to look at Vietnam within the context of Iraq. I think much can be learned about Vietnam in the light of our recent experiences, especially regarding the destructive power of public opinion.
It is widely acknowledged that our biggest PR problems with Vietnam began with the Tet Offensive… a battle in which we (and the ARVNs) completely demolished our enemy but after which the American public suddenly came to the realization that the “light at the end of the tunnel” (Westmoreland’s words) was nowhere in sight.
Such is the nature of warfare…no one can predict when it will end. Nonetheless this is where the public began to lose the hope that we would win the war.
This may be due to a number of factors but the one that makes the most sense to me is that the administration and the military had been promising victory “soon†for years and the civilian population felt cheated when they saw the capability that still remained within the ranks of the enemy. They were also being pummeled with anti-American propaganda (and I’m not talking about the VC…remember that the Chinese and the Soviets were very interested in seeing us lose this war).
It was at this point, when we were focused on victory, that the whole focus began to shift onto “getting out troops homeâ€. As with Iraq today, the pressure of public opinion forced a change in strategy…the instant a nation starts talking planning for troop withdrawal, they stop planning for victory. This is why we lost in Vietnam and it is why, sorry to say, we have probably already lost in Iraq as well. It has nothing to do with our military capability, which is nearly limitless by any historical standard—it has everything to do with our will to fight.
Above all I blame the Bush administration for not understanding this from the outset. I don’t think Information-Age America is capable of fighting a war for more than a few years. Had they fought this war properly it would be over by now.
Whether we would have won the war in Vietnam or not is a hugely complex matter. That it was distinctly possible is not. I’m not saying it’s a foregone conclusion, but yes, I think we may have won had the war been prosecuted more intelligently and had the American public not lost their stomach for it.
I feel the same way about Iraq.
73 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:32 pm
er…”“getting our troops homeâ€.
Also, what Beerme said.
74 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Today is the last day for voting in the 2006 Weblog Awards for Best Humor Blog. It looks like ScrappleFace will be 2nd behind the German LLL blog.
Next year, Scott!
75 Beerme // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Godfrey,
You can properly blame Bush’s poor prosecution of the war on the situation that exists now, regarding the lack of public will to continue the war but you can also blame Bush’s poor explanation of the entire war effort and the progress of the war (including the reasons for war and the need to continue to fight). This administration seems to have a good deal of difficulty explaining their actions and countering left wing criticism, effectively.
Oh, and thanks for explaining what I meant!
76 Beerme // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:42 pm
test
77 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:47 pm
da Bunny: “From where would a person’s “intuitive sense of right and wrong†come?”
According to me? It’s a by-product of survival instinct, the result of humans having to be able to live in groups to survive as a species. According to others? From God.
But that’s not the point. Hank used the word “revealed” which specifically invokes the Bible. My point is that there is a lot of morality in the Bible, some of which would be repugnant to most people today.
The fact that we can choose which of the passages from the Bible are “binding” to us and which were meant for some bygone tribe of primitives (i.e. which should be considered “moral” today) means that even if God exists he must have given us a moral basis upon which to judge such things.
Our morality, therefore, cannot have come from the Bible (i.e. revelation). It probably, therefore, pre-existed the Bible, which book in my opinion is one attempt among many to codify what appears to be a universal constant of human morality which is found in most human cultures.
78 Fred Sinclair // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:49 pm
There’s a whole lot of troll food out today & the trolls are lapping it up like my “Cocker/Beagle” Sally. A real feeding frenzy
Thesaurus
frenzy noun 1. the crowd whipped itself into a state of frenzy hysteria, madness, mania, delirium, feverishness, fever, wildness, agitation, turmoil, tumult; wild excitement, euphoria, elation, ecstasy.
Trolls are so excited with all this wonderful troll food they’re being fed - the danger is that if this keeps up much longer they will all die of gross obesity of the head (Genuine Fatheads).
Heirborn Ranger
79 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Beerme: as I said in an earlier post: the administrations during Vietnam can be excused for not understanding the power of public opinion, this administration should have known better.
If Bush had used the Powell doctrine (overwhelming force) and focused on winning quickly and decisively (as opposed to “cheaply”, thankyouverymuch Mr. Rumsfeld) things might be considerably different today.
Hindsight is 20/20, of course…and I can’t say I’d have made the correct decision in his place.
80 Fred Sinclair // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Picked this up from Rush today -
“If you pay people to be poor, you’ll have a lot of poor people.” - Milton Friedman
Now that’s really deep - sort of like Robert A. Heinlin’s “When the people find out that they can vote themselves Champagne and Cake and force you to pay for it. - They will!!”
81 Laughing@You // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Lessons learned from Vietnam ignored by the Bush Administration in attacking Iraq.
The Powell Doctrine
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
82 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:55 pm
I assert that a person can have a revelation without ever having read the Bible.
I assert that the pricking of one’s conscience is a revelation, for example.
This is not to say that Almighty God’s hand is not in said revelations; it is-the denial of which does not change the Truth of the matter.
83 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:06 pm
I do not consider Wikipedia authoritative and would never use it as my sole source of data for argumentative persuasion.
84 Godfrey // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Speaking of revelations, this guy seems to have had one.
85 da Bunny // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Well, Godfrey, I’m not entirely convinced that the survival instinct, which you say provides folks with their “intuitive” sense of right and wrong, exists among quite a large number of people these days. From what I read and see on TV, the home-based meth-lab business is booming.
86 conserve-a-tips // Dec 16, 2006 at 12:25 am
Well, it is 11:00 and I have just gotten in from helping the daughter go through closing on her very first little home and then hitting Lowes and Home Depot. I am numb. But I giggled at Scott’s piece and then read Just Rantings comment. All I have to say, Just Ranting, is:
The gays are getting Onions? What is so special about gays getting Onions? I get Onions all the time and I even grow them. Are gays getting special Onions or something? And if they are, why aren’t I getting special Onions? And what is so special about these Onions, anyway? Maybe they don’t make you cry? Is it their color? I don’t understand. I demand equality. I want special Onions too…….what?………Unions?….. Not Onions? Oh….Nevermind.
87 Godfrey // Dec 16, 2006 at 2:01 am
Da bunny: Yeah, I wonder myself how much instinct has survived into modernity. Nowadays “survival” means actually eating less food and occasionally opting for the stairs instead of the elevator.
Ah, progress…
You must log in to post a comment.